Why do I need a school uniform and how do such restrictions affect the personality of the child? Why do I need a school uniform.

Why do I need a school uniform?

Why do I need a school uniform?

   In Russia, the compulsory form for students was introduced back in 1834, and was canceled in 1992.   What school uniform and why is it needed - it became the theme of a grand celebration-anniversary

Girls and boys of the school changed their usual costumes - and young ladies from the Institute of Noble Maidens and pupils of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, high school students and high school students of the 19th century, pioneers in ties and students in the form of the “School of Cooperation” walked along the corridors.

Guests of the festival attended open classes, where they could work out under the program of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum in the classroom of fine literature or paint with starch-based paints prepared with their own hands in a chemistry class.

After the lessons, guests were waited for by intellectual games and the premiere of a musical about school uniforms, where in small scenes teachers and students talked about the mores and traditions of education of different periods of Russian history.

  And also - fashion show collection of school uniforms from the famous Russian fashion designer Victoria Andreyanova.

A brief history of school uniforms

Institute of Noble Maidens

In 1764, Catherine II founded the Educational Society of Noble Maidens, which later became known as the Smolny Institute for Noble Maidens. The purpose of this educational institution, as stated in the decree, was "..to give the state educated women, good mothers, useful members of the family and society."

Training and education went "by age." Girls of each age group wore dresses of a certain color: the youngest (5-7 years old) - coffee color, therefore they were called "coffee houses", 8-10 years old - blue or blue, 11-13 years old - gray, older girls wore white dresses . Dresses were closed ("deaf"), one-color, of the simplest cut. They wore a white apron, a white drape, and sometimes white mittens. Girls received advanced education in Europe: reading, languages, the basics of mathematics, physics, chemistry, dancing, knitting, manners, music.

The most famous is the form of the Imperial Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, a privileged educational institution for the children of nobles, which Pushkin graduated from. Children from 10-12 years old were admitted to the lyceum, high-ranking officials were trained from the pupils. The lyceum had a humanitarian and legal orientation, the level of education was equal to the university level, graduates received civil ranks from the 14th to 9th grades.

  Summer hostels

The boarding houses of noble maidens - state and commercial - in the second half of the 19th century spread throughout Russia. In each educational institution, a form of its color was adopted, but it was equally modest in appearance. Older girls have already been taken out to the balls and parties so that the young lady can find a “suitable party” and arrange her future life.

Since many girls lived in boarding houses permanently, for the summer they were allowed to change their everyday form to a lighter one - summer. Before us are some of the options for the summer form of guesthouses for walking. But even outside the school, the girl had to look strictly and touching - in a boater hat and a long dress.

Grammar School

The oldest Russian gymnasium is considered Academic, founded in 1726. But the real flourishing of the gymnasium dates back to the beginning of the 19th century, when the Ministry of Education was formed. Grammar schools began to arise throughout the Russian Empire. The uniform of the gymnasium students consisted of a cap, an overcoat, a tunic, trousers, and a ceremonial uniform. In winter, in the cold, they put on headphones and a headband. At each educational institution, they differed in color, edging, buttons and emblems. Teachers and supervisors strictly monitored the observance of all the rules for wearing a suit, which were detailed in the charter of educational institutions.

Grammar schools were classic, real, commercial, military. And women’s.

The gymnasium form for girls was approved only 63 years after the male one. In state gymnasiums, pupils wore brown dresses with a high collar and aprons. Mandatory turndown collar and straw hat. By the beginning of the 20th century, there were more than 160 female gymnasiums. At the end, the girls were given a certificate for the title of home teacher.

Soviet uniform

In 1918, the gymnasium form was recognized as a bourgeois remnant and was canceled. But in 1948, they returned the virtually pre-revolutionary form. The Soviet form of the new model appeared only in 1962. She already looked more like civilian clothes - without tunics, without caps and belts. The uniform for girls was similar to that of gymnasiums, only it was much shorter. Mandatory were a black or white holiday apron, lace collar, cuffs, white or black bows.

In the 70s, the boys appeared jacket, tailored to jisnovoy, and the older boys - a pantsuit. In the late 80s, school uniforms were in short supply, they even sold them on coupons. One of the reasons for the demand was its good quality and traditionally low price. Adult people began to wear it as casual and work clothes.

Compulsory school uniforms in Russia were officially abolished in 1992.

  The modern form of the "School of Cooperation"

Most prestigious educational institutions have their own form, emphasizing the belonging of students to a particular environment. This is a worldwide tradition, and the most prestigious educational institutions, for example, the Ivy League, which includes Cambridge and Oxford, have their own form.

While Kazakhstan is discussing a ban on hijabs in schools, in the UK they are arguing about whether students should wear skirts for classes. In the summer, Independent published an article stating that at least 40 schools introduced this restriction in order to support gender-non-conforming students. It is ironic that in the Russian city of Samara in 2016 there was a reverse case - the girls in one of the schools were forbidden to wear trousers.

Bans and rules in schools can have different goals and depend on trends in society as a whole. The question is how educational institutions have the right to decide for you how you should look and how it can affect you in adulthood. the site talks about different views on school uniforms and why hijabs or other clothes that are not appropriate for the school can only be useful to the child.

A boy in a translucent mesh top and a woman’s blouse stands in the school corridor. On the contrary - a respectable lady - the principal of the school. “A boy should not dress like that!” She tells the child. Other children pass by who giggle or look in surprise at the scene.
Neither the principal nor the other children knew that the boy came to school in his mother’s clothes because he was not a boy, but a transgender teenager. Sultana from childhood realized her femininity.

"It was like trying to slander you, they are telling a lie. They say to you: you are this, and you say: no, you are lying, this is not true, I am not this, I am this. Not only are they trying to slander you , they’re still trying to convince you, and you are resisting with all your strength that you are not this, namely that which is inside you, ”says the Sultana.

Sultana in childhood / Photo courtesy of the Sultana

In the elementary grades, the Sultan still went to school in the same form as the rest, simply because, due to her age, she still could not independently solve the issue of clothing. Then the Sultana had to compromise, for example, to wear slightly narrower trousers or leggings. When the Sultans cut her long hair, she felt as if she had been stripped of her honor.

“They always told me:“ Cut my hair, what a horror! ”They constantly tried to cut my hair. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes not. It was always a big tragedy when my hair was cut off, I felt like I had been dishonored. Just like a woman- Samurai, onna-bugeysya. "

Sultana as a teenager / Photo courtesy of the Sultana

Until the sixth and seventh grades, the Sultan did not dare to put on women's clothing at school, as she was afraid that she would have problems with the school’s administration, or she could, in the end, just be beaten. But one day she decided that she no longer wanted to wear something that was not to her liking. Then she staged her mini-protest.

"I realized that I no longer want to adapt. I realized that in this world there are much more important things than our safety. And so I decided to come to school, and it was just a day of duty. I took my mother’s net "and my mother’s blouse, put it all on. And while on duty, the director scolded me before everyone, called effeminate, said that it’s wrong. Other children saw some kind of approval from the director that I could be ashamed, called. It seems to me that gave them the feeling that if the director allows himself this, then they can. "

How they abandoned the form and returned to it again

The state may try to make its citizens look more or less the same when they receive knowledge, or, on the contrary, strive to give them as much freedom of choice as possible. This may depend on the cultural and historical context. It is curious that in Germany, even during the Third Reich, schoolchildren did not have a single uniform.

In Soviet schools, not only clothes were regulated, but also the hairstyles of children. In the transitional period after the collapse of the Union in schools, the time has come for freedom of external expression. This was partly due to the desire for democratization and the rejection of the old, partly because parents were more often worried that their children generally had clothes in general, taking care of a uniform uniform seemed unnecessary luxury. In the 21st century, post-Soviet countries began to re-introduce the mandatory form.

In Kazakhstan, since 2000, some schools began to develop their own clothing styles for students. This issue was finally resolved in 2016, when the Minister of Education issued an order. It contains general requirements for the uniform of boys and girls. The most discussed part of it was the one that prohibits the wearing of elements of clothing of religious affiliation to various faiths. The issue of religious freedom, the issue of imposing religion on little girls in hijabs, as well as the issue of the secularity of our schools - all this has been discussed for many years.

Zarina

On September 1, Zarina, accompanied by her mother, came to her school in Taldykorgan in full solemn vestment for the Day of Knowledge. She wore a yellow stripe vest, school emblem, tie and other attributes defined by the school charter. Only one detail was knocked out: a headscarf tied under the chin. At school, Zarina was met by the head teacher, who said that she would not go to class.

“Previously, they asked her to tie the scarf back like a bandana, they said that you could cover your hair a little with a scarf, she didn’t agree to this,” says Zarina’s mother Gulvira Ospanova. a compromise and says: “Well, I’ll tie it back, but only inside the school.” She made it difficult to make a compromise because she sees that it’s hard, so many attacks. And this year the school said: take off everything, no scarves, there was an order. "

Gulvira has three daughters. She says that they have freedom of religion in their family, for example, her husband is an irreligious person. Gulvira's eldest daughter is a college student and wears socialite clothes. The youngest is still too small to choose a style of clothing, and Zarina, according to Gulvira, first began to wear a scarf following the example of her mother. Then, from the image detail, the headscarf grew into something more.

Gulvira teamed up with other parents who believe their daughters should go to school in hijabs. A class action lawsuit was filed for violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion. However, the requirements of the parents were not satisfied. Gulvira is now awaiting appeal. While she transferred her daughter to distance learning.

“This is a wrong situation, because they violate, firstly, the Constitution. Even the very first section, the first article states that our Kazakhstan is a democratic, secular and legal state, and the highest value is a person, his rights and freedoms. That eat already, here no one pays attention to the person. "

About hijabs at school

Muslim and social activist Iman Kuanyshkyzy says that together with other believers, MES offered several options for teaching Muslim girls.

Iman Kuanyshkyzy / Photo by Facebook

“We proposed options where all the requirements for the so-called secularism, as understood by school principals, are fulfilled. We proposed legislatively approving distance education. By the way, then our eminent NIS, Tamos and other educational networks could reach a distance teaching format, as a result, all you’d only benefit from this. Do you think that the Ministry of Education and Science was happy to compromise? No, I assure you. The Ministry has provided another unsubscribe to our proposal, and school principals refuse to give the girls their documents to go to distance learning, although they have a certificate of attachment to another school! Regarding separate schools, where girls will not need to wear a headscarf, because the teaching staff will be completely female, we can say that they are very difficult to open, because no one believes "that they are completely secular, and that girls attend classes without headscarves, so constant checks are guaranteed. This greatly undermines the effectiveness of the educational process."

Didar Mardanov, a consultant on management at higher educational institutions and the head of a career guidance company, believes that schools need a single form, as it smoothes social inequalities between students and helps them tune in to study.

“There are a lot of studies that show the benefits of all children wearing the same clothes at school. There are proven studies that this helps students focus not on appearance, not on external forms, but on some more important things. Very important understand that they wear the same clothes only 40-30% of their time, the rest of the time they can dress as they want.The students express themselves very much, they like to show their social status, in this regard, that they are in the same clothes, it doesn’t harm them, but a little more good. "

Didar Mardanov believes that schools should remain secular territory. However, tolerance should also be maintained.

“Our state has several tools for how to work. Unfortunately, some tools are very complex and some tools are very easy, and when Kazakhstan has a question, what tools does it cost - it costs the simplest ones,” Didar Mardanov said. “It’s necessary to do a good education, a high-quality system of teachers, but it’s difficult, it’s costly, it’s a long-term issue. and the standards that its charter in another monastery do not climb in this case it does not work, and a very important point that the school -. the same property of every citizen, is not a private monastery, it is our common territory ".

Wrong hairstyle

Alexandra Alyokhova says that her son is constantly making comments at the school where he goes. It's all about the hairstyle. The son of Almaty does not wear dreadlocks or Iroquois. But his head and temples were shaved. The fashionable hairstyle does not fit in the idea of \u200b\u200bthe school administration about how the student should look.

Claims began last academic year, and since the beginning of this year, the tenth grader began to be met almost every day at the school doorstep and said that you should not go to school with such a hairstyle.

Because of this hairstyle, a student was claimed at school / Photo by Facebook

“I’ve been well prepared over the summer, I looked at the law on education. The law does not say a word about the length of hair for boys. It says that there simply needs to be a well-groomed, neat hairstyle. Girls should not walk with loose hair, boys, as we are told, long hair. But the law does not really say anything about the length of hair for boys, "commented Alexandra Alyokhova.

Alexandra decided to talk with the school principal about her son and asked not to exert pressure on him, as this could affect his studies.

“I just asked the director not to frustrate the child, not to break his psyche, because he is now in tenth grade and has an in-depth training program. The director agreed with me. That is, if he broke something with his hair, the director would categorically point out it would either show a document that says “it is impossible.” But this did not happen, ”says Alexandra.

The Law on Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan does not really say anything about the hairstyles of students. Moreover, it says that the authorized body "develops and approves requirements for compulsory school uniforms."

With regard to school charters, the Education Act does not indicate that this document regulates the requirements for the appearance of students. But there are words that "the charter of the organization of education may contain other provisions related to its activities and not contradicting the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan."

Moreover, the law also states that the student has the right to “free expression of his own opinion and belief”, and also that “the use of methods of physical, moral and mental violence against students and pupils is not allowed.”

Should the school dictate?

In the United States, public schools do not have a uniform, there are only dress codes, for example, it is undesirable to wear deep necklines or too low-fitting pants. In Japan, a school uniform is required, however, while it has firmly entered popular culture as a fetishized garment. In Finland, whose education system is considered one of the best, there is also no school uniform, because the individuality of students is more important for the education system, and clothing is a way of self-identification.

The unification of appearance in human culture is always a way of control. Having made everyone the same, society turns a person into one of many, devoid of social differences and individual external expression. This is probably why form is so important in the most totalitarian systems: army, prison. On the other hand, the form plays a mass-unifying role, it speaks of belonging to the community and can be a matter of pride.

How pedagogical and how respectful of the emerging personality of the child is to dress him in uniform from childhood?

Child psychologist Oksana Gulak says that in general, a single form cannot have a decisive effect on the psyche of a child, although this can also be one of the factors that suppresses individuality. In general, the requirements for schoolchildren’s clothes are not so dangerous, it’s important not to slip into the dictatorship and regulation of small details of the students ’appearance, as this can turn into something more than just clothing requirements. For example, it can become a way of oppressing the unwanted.

“I think that when the school uniform begins to be the one when, for example, the child wants to wear a jacket or not, and he is forced to wear it, or just not enough white, it is very similar to such harsh prison laws. I think it’s it’s not a problem of form, but a problem of some schools that can be extremely harsh about their appearance, ”Oksana Gulak believes.“ This will not kill an individual if there is one. If it is not supported by parents and teachers, then the school uniform and all that anything can kill this personality, therefore it’s not so significant. The most significant thing is the attitude of parents and teachers towards the child, what he thinks, what he feels. The school uniform is just something extra that creates, maybe, an additional small plus or additional small minus, but that is not a big problem. "

Moreover, individual cases, for example, the transgender nature of a child, is a factor that, in the opinion of the psychologist, cannot be ignored.

"From my point of view, it is very important to cultivate tolerance in society of various sexual orientations and gender identities that form in adolescence, because no matter how we want to bring this sexual orientation, it will be," says the psychologist. - The question is not only the teenager’s desire, for example, to have sex with someone, has a lot of feelings, many emotions, because this sexual orientation, gender identity captures a lot. If we are going to put pressure on the child, dress him in clothes for the other sex, which he doesn’t want to wear, then we have a great risk of pushing us to thoughts of suicide, or serious neuroses, or mental disorders. "

As for religious beliefs, the psychologist admits that often they are simply imposed on children by their parents. That is, the issue of informed choice is becoming relevant here. On the other hand, the personality in any case is largely formed under the influence of the cultural background of adults who surround it from the very beginning.

“Tolerance towards everything, including religion, is a very important issue, which, unfortunately, we do not always stand, because it seems to jeopardize our own identity, if the other very openly represents his identity,” commented the psychologist - It seems to me that the best thing we can do is respect the beliefs of people, the choice of their sexual orientation. Lawyers have a good saying: my rights end at the tip of the nose of another. I think the same thing we can say about the form, and about scarves. ere is the acceptance of the other, as long as it does not cause any obvious damage to the other. "

Sultana / Photo courtesy of the Sultana

We met the Sultana, which was mentioned at the beginning of the material as an adult. The slender brown-haired woman is confident, she told us that she is working as a coordinator of the project to support the LGBTIQ + community in Astana. The Sultana still believes that the school and society as a whole should not impose standards of appearance and clothing on a person.

“It seems to me that when a school or state imposes some standards of clothing or expression of self-expression, it very much harms the individual and then affects people very much. The education system says that due to the uniform form, we can focus more on learning, and not be distracted, moreover, the form erases class differences. But is it so? Will the children study better by sitting in uncomfortable, stifling, ugly, identical forms? And for what purpose is this system trying to hide class differences that are in any case In my opinion, this is very serious, because our expression, our self-expression is how we interact with society, this is what we want to say to society, and when the younger generation tries to differ and dress differently, to speak differently, look differently, it’s very good. It was always really, it’s culture, this is how the young generation tries to show their dissimilarity, novelty. This is normal, despite all the prohibitions. Unfortunately, very few people understand that prohibitions do not work, that there are always some other ways to get around this. "

Today, Lena sent an interesting article - "Swedish school desk, or why do we need a school."I strongly agree with many!

Let’s think, colleagues, why do we really need a high school? And, most importantly, who needs it? We are somehow already used to the fact that all children attend school, and this is necessary even not for us, but for the children themselves. However, is there a fair amount of hypocrisy here? In my opinion, there is. And I’m going to show today what we really have reasons to torture the child for ten years, until he can resist.

Why parents need a school

Parents need a school, first of all, so that they can take their children into it. Like luggage in a left-luggage office. After all, you need to work, right? And leaving the child is often not with anyone.

By the way, it is funny that few people are convinced of the need for kindergartens. Kindergartens are often perceived as an inevitable evil - "it’s better in a kindergarten than with a grandmother." However, the school is already considered something holy, and even if the mother does not work, the children go to school anyway.

Well and, of course, children are sent to school, like a car to a car workshop - for tuning. To children "pumped". And parents, like inveterate street racers, then measure up with their children: "Mine goes to the gold medal. And mine has already entered Moscow State University." Agree, a child who studies well is a good reason for pride.

Why does the state need a school

The state goes to meet the parents, and creates the conditions for the daily maintenance of children. Now is not the eighteenth century and, from the point of view of the state, women should work. And if so, women need to create a place where they can turn in their children, and convince women that this is done for their own benefit.

Have you seen a nursery at the entrance to many supermarkets? You hand over the child and wander around the store for a couple of hours, calmly shopping. That's the school: you hand over the child, and calmly go to work.

And, of course, as in supermarkets, the state actively advertises to children what it considers necessary. That is, the state is trying to provide children with patriotic education. Pay attention - I am not saying that patriotic education is bad. I’m just telling why the state needs schools.

Why do children need a school?

The children themselves, as you know, are not very pleased to recognize that they are superfluous - and they are simply being handed over somewhere so that they do not get underfoot. Therefore, children are usually not told the truth, but instead they are fed excuses. Excuses, by the way, unlike fairy tales about Stork and Santa Claus, work - many children are sincerely convinced that they force them to study at school for their own benefit. Convinced of this and adults.

As a rule, the following arguments are presented in defense of the school.

School gives children knowledge

The very first argument that comes to mind. Well, of course, how can an adult live without knowing Newton's Laws? But can such a blue-legged ignoramus be called a full-fledged person?

You know, you can. It just so happened, I had to conduct more than one hundred interviews in my life, taking people to work. And I am well aware of the minimum level of knowledge that high school provides:

a) Ability to write in clumsy handwriting, with syntactic and, often, spelling errors;
   b) The ability to read not too complex texts, such as fiction;
   c) Knowledge of the rules of arithmetic and the ability to use a calculator.

All. With these three skills, you can easily finish high school. The rest is from the evil one. To prove my point, I propose a banal look at any forum. You will see that many people are physically unable to write correctly - at least without spelling mistakes.

By the way, I don’t know what it is connected with, in LJ they usually write much more literally than in other places. Perhaps it affects the level of readers.

As for arithmetic, it is also easy to show the level of knowledge. How many people got involved in not being able to calculate the real interest on the loan? But interest, they are fractions, go to the school curriculum immediately after arithmetic. It turns out that percent of school knowledge is already ending.

These two subjects - Russian language and mathematics - run through the entire school curriculum, from first grade to tenth, as a red thread. How little remains in the head after the lessons of history, biology, foreign languages? Monstrously small.

But, you ask me, are there people who know Russian and mathematics? Did they get their knowledge?

That's right, they got something. Because they wanted to receive. But those who did not want to study, forcibly   it was not possible to shove knowledge into the head. Therefore, it will be wrong to say that the school "gives knowledge."

The school provides an opportunity to obtain knowledge for those children who want it. True, with a very low efficiency, which I will talk about below.

School teaches to think systemically

Another prejudice - supposedly the school teaches to think systematically and independently seek knowledge. Of course, the school does not teach anything like this. School teaches stupid to remember all, about any system, and there is no question.

Quite the contrary, a child is taught that, in the apt expression of Joseph Stalin, "any rubbish will fit in a large farm." Say, "teach, nonsense, chemistry, come in handy. But how will you live without chemistry then?"

I will draw an analogy. Imagine that you are walking along the street and you see that an empty beer bottle is standing on the wall. You can, after all, bring the same arguments for you to pick it up and turn it in - "money is never redundant."

Will you pick up every empty bottle, based on the fact that "two rubles on the farm will always come in handy"? I dare to believe that no. There are other ways to make money.

However, we force children to learn exactly everything in a row! This is not a systematic approach. This, on the contrary, is the “homeless approach” - picking up bottles.

School prepares for admission to college

Another argument is that the school is preparing to enter the institute. And after the institute, a person receives a diploma, and gets a job.

There is such a thing. But let's think about whether the diploma - this blue or red crust - is worth fifteen years of life? Is the price too high?

Take, for example, my area, finance. There is such an honorable and responsible profession - an accountant. Good accountant courses take about 80 hours. To take courses you need to be able to read, write and work on a calculator. All.

Now the question. I know a lot of accountants with higher education. What did they spend these 15 years on - time at school and college? For reading and writing? Sorry, but now many preschoolers can read and write.

And in fact, there are specialties that it takes a lot of time to master. A doctor, engineer, pilot has to spend years to master his profession.

However, let us consider these specialties in more detail. Entrance exams to the institute consist, as a rule, of the Russian language and mathematics. A brilliant knowledge of syntax, excuse me, neither a doctor, nor an engineer, nor a pilot need to master a profession.

And with mathematics, the situation is trickier. It is desirable for a student of a technical university to imagine what the integral is and what the logarithm is. It would seem - here it is the real use of the school. Who else will teach the child integrals?

But again I will ask a question about time. Does mastering integrals really take 10 years?

Perhaps, you know, in Russia, at least in St. Petersburg and Moscow, there is a system of mathematical circles where children interested in mathematics are engaged. They are selected in the fifth or seventh grade, after math contests.

So, there they pass the school curriculum in passing for a couple of years, and then move on to the institute. Children then suffer greatly in ordinary math classes - they have to listen to the teacher chewing for 45 minutes the material that they themselves pass in three minutes.

This is what the main problem   modern school - violent education.

I will make a comparison. Imagine that you came to the gym, lift the barbell. But you are handed dumbbells of five kilograms and offered to squat with them. Why? Yes, because the program is like that. And the fact that you can easily sit down with a 50 kilogram bar does not bother anyone. Kindly - squat with dumbbells, like everyone else.

Psychologist Mikhail Litvak often repeats: "If you want to raise a lazy child, make him do boring things." This is exactly what happens in our school with capable guys, from which doctors, engineers and pilots should be obtained. They are forced to learn for 10 years what they themselves are quite capable of learning in six months. And when such guys graduate from school, often they have a banal fuse - and instead of love for the same mathematics, they acquire a persistent disgust for it.

I am not exaggerating - the school’s efficiency is really extremely low. It’s just not so noticeable, because at the same time as a student at school, the child grows up. Two processes go in parallel: going through a school curriculum and growing up a child.

That is, the child at the same time becomes dull from school, and grows wiser, becoming older. Therefore, the illusion arises that the child became smarter by studying in school, and not just because of his age.

I will give one more characteristic example. Here is what Yuri Isaakovich Neymark, a world-famous cybernetics scientist, writes about himself: “I hardly studied at school (more precisely, I studied for less than three years), but I had a father’s library in my possession in childhood and I found out with curiosity and joy about the world and obviously did not succeed only in the ability to write without errors. "

Please note - Yuri Neymark is a scientist, academician, and not an ordinary researcher. And somehow he managed without school. If you use Google, you will find many more similar examples.

Well, I want to make out another, "main" argument in defense of high school. This argument is usually given by experienced educators.

School provides a social environment

The essence of the argument is as follows. The child needs society, the ability to communicate with peers. Where can I get it if not at school?

I will answer. Let's say there are 6 lessons at school. The child communicates with friends 10 minutes before class, 10 minutes after class and an hour with little things during all the changes. Total - an hour and a half a day.

And what - one and a half hours a day are called communication? It would be much more effective to play the same hour and a half in football - there would be not only communication, but also a common cause - playing in a team. Why suffer for the sake of these wretched hours and a half all day?

In fact, it’s not about “communication skills” at all. The point is in the communication environment. School, and then institute, often give the student a certain circle of acquaintances, in which his life goes on. Perhaps you noticed that the fate of graduates of one class or one group at the institute often develops similarly? From some class you get addicts, from some - programmers. This is no coincidence.

School directors, by the way, do not hide this. In private conversations, they agree that the school does not provide knowledge. They see the main task of the school is to place the child in a specific environment in which he will continue to live.

Another question is whether the child himself needs it? Friends are a double-edged sword. They help you when you have problems, and pull you down when you are successful. Friends - this is usually such a swamp that does not let go of itself.

And the big question is whether the child himself needs such happiness. Especially when you consider that the circle of communication you can choose another, different from the school. For example, a child can get his or her circle of friends at a chess club or computer club.

School teaches to work in a team

Another traditional argument is preparing children for adulthood. Say, school - it gives children the necessary experience, and without this experience it will be difficult for children to work in a team later.

So here. This argument is rotten. The fact is that a school is not an analogue of a factory or office. School is an analogue of a prison.

1. Freedom

• A worker can quit at any time.
• Zack cannot leave prison, only transfer to another cell under certain circumstances
• A student cannot leave school, only go to another class.

2. Attitude to superiors

• The authorities treat the worker as an equal, since the worker is not particularly dependent on him. For example, a worker may call the boss "you", bosses often greet the worker by the hand.
• Zek and security in the zone - obviously in an unequal position.
• The student is a lower being in relation to the teacher.

3. Attitude towards work and colleagues

• A worker can demand that his colleagues fulfill their duties; no one is liable to endure lazy people.
• For a real prisoner, working is not very cool anymore, and knocking on comrades is just a bit of a bitch.
• For a student to study is no longer very healthy, and knocking on his comrades is simply a bastard.

The list, as you understand, can be continued. The school atmosphere is much more like a prison than a working one. And the reason for this is understandable - children are forced to go to school by force. And it is in this that I see the main problem of the modern school.

What to do, or the concept of the Swedish school desk

My regular readers know that it’s not my rule to hang a problem in the air. There is a problem, there must be a solution. And of course there is a solution. I propose the concept of a Swedish school desk.

What is a buffet? This is when a person chooses the dishes he wants to eat. What is a Swedish school desk? This is when the student himself chooses subjects of interest to him.

That is, I suggest introducing free attendance at schools.

For example, if a student wants to learn chemistry, he goes and does chemistry. And if a student knows chemistry well, he does not go to his third grade, but to the fourth, fifth or even tenth — that class where chemistry is taught at an interesting level.

There is no revolution in this, in fact, the same thing is happening now at extracurricular circles, such as chess or mathematical circles. If you want, you go, if you don’t want, you don’t go. And nothing - talented chess players somehow appear, although chess is not included in the school curriculum.

Here is what the Swedish school desk really gives children:

1. Talented and simply capable children can finally receive knowledge at their own speed - and not at the speed of the most stupid student in the class. The level of graduates will increase sharply.
   2. Teachers will have to raise the level of teaching, otherwise no one will go to them corny. Teachers who reach retirement will be a thing of the past.
   3. Efficiency will increase significantly - children will learn only what is interesting to them. That is, at the end of school, the level of knowledge in children will be much higher than now, while children will spend less time studying.
   4. There will be much fewer children whose school discourages any desire to study and work.
5. Children will learn to learn and work on their own.
   6. Children will learn to make decisions, which is perhaps the most important thing.

Of course, I understand that all this sounds quite provocative. However, fortunately, I am not a pioneer here. For example, a brilliant phrase was said by Gabriel Laub: “We have been studying our whole life, not counting the dozen years spent in school.”

And now there are examples of true schools. Here, for example, is a clipping from an interview with Alexander Tubelsky, director of the famous Moscow school:

So far, no one in the educational community has seriously wondered what a general education is. It is believed that this is already understandable. "General" - it means for everyone, and for everyone the same. From here comes the idea of \u200b\u200bstandards, the Unified State Examination, and everything else. Meanwhile, you need to seriously think about what is “general” that a person in school should receive. Previously, it was believed that these were the foundations of the sciences - now it’s not fashionable to say it, but essentially everything remains the same in the programs. And therefore, disputes in the field of the content of education are conducted only about whether this specific knowledge is the “basis of science” or not. One famous academic mathematician recently complained here that throwing logarithms out of a program is a downfall for some of the many mathematical theories. I tell him: “Well, then teach these logarithms of your students and graduate students who came specifically to deal with this theory - let them click them like nuts. And why should all teenagers in Russia master the logarithms if they haven’t anywhere else with them will meet? "
…
   In our high school, we follow the line of the individual educational plan that the child draws up on his own - and, by the way, in this self-determination, the system of work for self-knowledge that was conducted in the middle classes helps him a lot. His individual plan is also connected, first of all, not with the fundamentals of sciences, but with those universal human skills that I spoke about. Say, I’m not very able to organize work in a group of people - and I want to work just in that direction. But I hardly understand the popular science text, I do not know how to interpret the information received for the purposes of my work, etc. And teachers, given the needs of the child, formulated as an individual curriculum, can offer their own moves: say, I’m not just doing math in depth with you, but focusing on building various models, including mathematical ones, that a person can create.

As you can see, gradually, everything is already moving in this direction. But, you ask, what am I suggesting? Take torches and go burn schools? IMHO, this is superfluous. In my opinion, it’s quite simple to understand what our traditional school education is all about. And, of course, if there is such an opportunity, do not send your child to prison.

Finally, I’ll make a prediction. I bet ten dollars against one that many of you have objected: "But if you give your child freedom, he will not study - he will sit at the computer for days on end."

So here. Fortunately, this is not so. Children are very curious creatures. They are interested in everything. Only an adult can do nothing for days on end - to whom, while studying at school, they have carefully taken away the place that is responsible for the desire to study.

And you don’t have much choice. If the child does not want to learn, you will not force him.

Konstantin

2011-06-13 11:53:32

Thank! Cool post. Such info can be safely taken and distributed over the network! :) Although I graduated from high school a long time ago, I recall with horror these “school years”. It really is a real prison, no freedom ... The situation is similar at the university, but still there are differences. And by the way, I completely agree with the concept of the "Swedish school desk". Personally, with great pleasure I would study only the subjects that interest me. And still with great pleasure - I would hammer a bolt on uninteresting / unnecessary / etc. - subjects and disciplines! It would also be great if all the parents who are just about to send their children to school would read this post + a couple of books by Robert Kiyosaki. Sincerely, Konstantin. P.S Retweeted, cool info! :)

Andrey Komyshev

2011-06-13 14:27:49

Interesting article, Nikolay! I wonder where you will give your Seryozha when he turns 7 years old?

2011-06-14 09:50:06

Unfortunately, in real life, all this will not work. Already about 20 years ago I talked with students from England, already at that time I was shocked by the motivation with which they plow to learn, their real thirst for knowledge. For example, those who studied Russian immediately told us that we would only speak Russian and piously adhered to this rule, despite our timid attempts to raise our low level of English. But! Despite the fact that such an approach is characteristic of the Western education system, studies by Western scientists show that without constant monitoring of the process of motivation training, learning in any chosen (!) Course is enough for ... 1.5-2% of students. Please note that this number statistically coincides with the percentage of successful people who are in the hands of most of the world's wealth. Not to mention that now, from the height of my age, I can say what I really needed at school and college, and what was missing. In addition, new knowledge and skills needs also come with experience. For example, disciplines such as management, for example, are empty words for a student, because he DOES NOT NEED management skills, well, he does not manage anyone while the student is. And when it is finalized when it will be necessary to manage someone, he will forget to think that he once studied management. Farther. Nikolay, I did not expect this from you, unless it is a direct provocation: to master the profession of a doctor, engineer, etc. no need for syntax knowledge. You are in public and in photographs always in a shiny suit and tie - and why not in torn jeans? Will you know less from this? Or is it worse to teach others? Or become a bad coach? But, indeed, you will become. Because a coach without an image is not a coach. But I am deeply convinced that an illiterate doctor, engineer, pilot cannot be professionals. Yes, I agree, the efficiency of our school is low, but this is not a reason to start by breaking everything down to the ground, because, as a rule, "then" does not appear, but the devastation remains. Yes, I agree that the Soviet school of ideology was higher than the roof, starting with the "grandchild of Ilyich" until graduation, but now, not in Soviet times, but now, when it seems that you can teach and interesting things, the level of education fell below the plinth. I also strongly disagree with the statement, "not too complex texts, such as fiction." I believe that just fiction (I do not mean flowing opuses of authors of type D. Dontsova) is a much more brain-developing reading than any technical or educational texts. Our classical, highly artistic, literature is recognized all over the world, and it is not for us to refuse this wealth. And if you accept the concept of the buffet in education, then you, Nikolai, know better than me that people are buying not what they don't really need, but what they want at the moment. So they’ll buy it!

2011-06-14 09:57:15

But in this post there is a rational kernel, we are accustomed to live a standard life, and it’s time to use non-standard thinking everywhere, including education, be guided by a creative approach in long-established systems and, if possible, change standard stereotypes. I think the author is right in every way.

2011-06-14 12:49:51

Agree. At school, for example, I was very bored, so in high school I just missed something that I already understand quite well. Despite the frequent omissions, she graduated from the school "without triples" - to the joy of parents. In the institute, in general, I was exclusively on exams, and I also graduated from it, it is no longer as good as school, but this was not a priority task, because the child was then small, which simply had no one to leave with, and when she gave it to the kindergarten, she went to work. I read a lot in childhood, and therefore I always had five in Russian. She loved mathematics, but comprehended too quickly, so she skipped so as not to listen to the same thing a hundred times. I would be happy if I were given the opportunity to develop in my favorite subjects, than just stupidly be present at all the lessons as in a locker room. And from childhood I remember that I did not like school. My 8-year-old son finished first grade in Russia, and is now studying in Australia. The difference is huge. Here, children go to school with pleasure (in primary) and, as far as I know, in high school they have the opportunity to choose subjects for which they work hard. I am sure that, of course, the education process is too long here, as much as 12 years, but the children have at least some right of choice. It would be great to have such an education for children, as Nikolai suggests. But to win the system of state is not given to everyone. On the other hand, there are plenty of private schools. Nikolay, open yours!

2011-06-14 13:25:00

Of course, you can give a choice, but really working   the system is not easy to build. But in fact I agree. I have both a medal and a red diploma, but to achieve of theirgoals, not goals of parents / school / state, no one taught. From 15 years, there are a few good memories left. And there’s practically no benefit.

2011-06-14 14:00:03

The text is written based on ideal / energetic / healthy children. And for most lazy parents, unhealthy / insufficiently energetic / lazy children grow up. And if they are allowed to choose what to teach, they will choose "do not learn anything." The school does not rape them in childhood - they are raped by life and depressing lack of competitiveness in comparison with the same Chinese, whom their parents very hard annoy in terms of study.

2011-06-14 14:07:07

The article has the right thoughts, but some points are controversial. Systematic mental work provides not only knowledge; persistent brain skills in information processing are formed. Not always in life have to do only interesting things. Whoever succeeds is just very lucky. The athlete's competition is preceded by long tedious training. The brain, as a tool, must be able to complete the task regardless of interest. The engineer has quite a lot of routine work. I told my daughter that the main results of schooling should be a trained brain and a habit of mental work.

2011-06-14 16:14:41

I absolutely agree with the author that the school completely discourages the desire to learn from capable children. I myself faced this. Now I see the same thing with my son. As for the fact that children left to their own devices will only play on the computer - judge for yourself. The son of the entire 11th grade almost played an online game just days and nights. Because my position: this is your life and you decide what to spend it on. The result - a gold medal and 85 points in English (the game is completely English). Children who studied English for 11 years with tutors received 80-90 points, which is about the same result. If the child is not too gifted, there is no use at all from the school. My youngest daughter has serious learning problems. Now she has finished grade 5. She studies only at home - I explain everything to her myself - she simply does not understand a teacher, not one. especially math, english, history. The question arises - does she need a school. I really want to take her to an externship so that I do not waste time for several hours every day. It only stops the attitude of teachers towards such children. They say that they greatly find fault with exams. And that same social factor - the class has a certain circle of communication, which is more difficult to provide at home. Maybe someone has experience in self-education of children? I will be glad to advise ...

2011-06-14 14:28:19

1. I checked on myself. You can become an average specialist in any field in six months. To do this, you need to smell a little. 2. Education is important. It develops at least some kind of horizons. I would save all school subjects, but for some students I reduced the number of hours for study and changed the teaching methodology. They often talk bored. 3. To educate children, it is necessary, like adults, to motivate something. Usually motivators from teachers are very unsuccessful. 4. I agree that the efficiency of our education is low. During his life, he never took an integral. Only at the university when studying.

2011-06-14 17:43:39

Everything is relative. We were all the same apart from the school - if it was really interesting for us to draw knowledge from outside - circles, libraries, people. I myself believe that school education is insanely outdated, but it is beneficial for the state to create standards. School is another wheel in the system - when a person is not allowed to grow. But the school was not always like that. School   - Learning, experience gained in something 2) School   - Direction in the field of science, art 3) School   - The system of compulsory exercises (in figure skating) 4) School   - What gives such training, experience 5) School   - Educational institution; the building of such an institution In my opinion, the school teaches just restrictions - it’s impossible, it’s not cultural, and so on. Now, if you look at the great troechniks, this framework does not apply to them. Stereotypes and standards impede the development of personality. This is where you need to start.

Natalya Pavlova

2011-06-14 18:01:57

So I don’t want standard obedient soldiers who do not have an opinion out of my children at school. Sent her senior to a Canadian school in Dalian (China). The child and I are delighted. Who cares, please contact Skype c3400225. I’ll tell you more. They really give a good education.

2011-06-14 20:32:03

Recently, articles on school problems have been appearing more and more on the Internet. Nevertheless, we all finished school with some kind of social, intellectual, etc. experience. If you conduct a survey among schoolchildren, they will be 100% in favor of canceling the school. And what in return. In order to introduce this model of the Swedish school desk, first of all, our psychology and willingness to be with your child, to help him, including paying for interest groups and classes on a subject, must change. And if you raise the question of how to choose those items that would be interesting and necessary. Not familiar with them.

2011-06-15 04:05:19

The article is interesting, there is something to discuss. But, in my opinion, too categorical. 1) The "Swedish school desk" is not suitable for all children, but only for those who have developed curiosity before school, instilled a habit of systematic mental stress. Just as a trained body requires movement, so a trained brain requires mental work. Not all families can develop a child. The school, of course, is not ideal, but it pulls many children out of the plant life. 2) It is completely possible not to break the existing system (as you know: to break - not to build). We have a choice for our children - not so long ago the best in the world system of extracurricular (additional) education + external studies or home schooling. I work as a teacher of continuing education (circle leader). In our system, there is just a free choice of subjects, and teachers, and the duration of training, and programs. Is free! 3) There are schools where children are interested, where to study well is normal, but bad is strange. My eldest daughter graduated from this (though, at the university, she is now tormented by a general lack of understanding of her craving for knowledge) and the middle one is studying there. So we have a choice and freedom! you just need to be able to use them.

2011-06-15 09:15:33

More schools are good and different! The main charm in the choice. The choice of subject, teacher, school, team. Now many private kindergartens, specialized schools in additional education (language, music, etc.) have already appeared. Perhaps the future belongs to private comprehensive schools? Good perspective, in my opinion. And then everyone will choose for themselves where to give their children. I would prefer the school that Nikolay writes about. I'm sure the children would figure out what to choose. Thanks for the interesting article.

2011-06-15 15:05:24

An interesting article and it was written very biased, from the point of view of an adult, absolutely not taking into account the development of the child's psyche. By the way, it is very similar to the reasoning of Jehovah's Witnesses about the church. The same sarcasm and confusion of concepts. There has already been written a lot in the comments, so only a few comments. If dad is an academician and mother is an academician, then the child absolutely does not need a school, as a building that needs to be walked five days a week. But if dad is an addict, and mom is an alcoholic, then for him this is the only chance to get out of it all. About friends: if you have such friends, these are your problems. If teachers know which class is “bad” and do nothing with it. they are not teachers, but artisans, and they should not be allowed into the children at all. Speaking of people who can immediately lift a barbell of 50 kg, and they are given dumbbells of 5 kg. If you do not learn how to control your body correctly with a small weight, the only thing you will get when you start working with a large weight right away is after 2-3 years: severe hemorrhoids, torn ligaments, an injured spine. And then health cannot be bought for any money. In Ukraine, for many years, they shouted that vaccinations for children are harmful and dangerous. And what we have now, the absence of vaccines, and the huge increase in the incidence of tuberculosis in children who are no longer vaccinated, is HARMFUL! Sorry if something is wrong. Hooked. The lack of good programs and talented teachers does not mean that it is necessary to destroy the system. There is no other, and it is unlikely to be. Criticizing is always easier, and calmer. Sincerely, Victor.

Alexander

2011-06-15 17:14:54

Quite interesting. The school really gives a lot of knowledge that in life may not be useful in general. And sometimes the student feels flawed by the fact that he does not know what is not interesting to him, since he is forced to learn it. So you can repulse all the desire to learn.

2011-06-17 12:56:19

Really, well written, right! One day. But all these prejudices with opinions about our school are very inert. And yet, you have to start with something!

2011-07-01 00:03:52

Yes, the article is interesting, there is something to agree with and there is something to argue with. I agree that the school provides a huge amount of material that is absolutely not useful in life. It is material, not knowledge! Knowledge can only be acquired if you yourself want it. To receive does not mean to receive. However, not the children themselves go to the first class of specialized schools, but parents make the choice for them. At school, a child cannot make a choice without having an idea of \u200b\u200bwhat chemistry, physics, biology, etc. So the initial familiarization is in any case necessary. Being an excellent student in school does not mean becoming successful in life. So it may be more important to teach a child to succeed for a start in learning, in communication, and to teach to set goals and achieve them. This would be a good preparation for future life.

2011-12-11 14:18:37

Excerpt from Robert Kiyosaki’s book “The Conspiracy of the Rich” “One of the first people who shared my suspicions about education was John Taylor Gatto, who, among other things, was the author of The Weapons of Mass Learning and Puppet Factory books. Mr. Gatto was elected three times as New Year's teacher. York even once became a teacher of the New York State Year. In 1991, he quit teaching, writing in an article for the Wall Street Journal: "I can’t continue to teach in this way. Let me know if you hear about a position that I don’t need bu a harm children, teaching them life. I was defeated, and now forced to look for work. ""

2011-12-12 16:28:49

1. SYSTEM. In what system the school is located, it will be so. If you want to change school, change the system. The school will change under the system. There are options - non-state schools, but they are as many “different” as the system allows. 2. PRINCIPLES. Today, one of the main working moments in the system is the principle of divide and get involved, therefore there is a child and adult psychology, etc. .. When choosing from the unknown, a lazy or cowardly person will not be able to choose anything, and a curious or curious person can try everything. I do not see age difference here. 3. UPDATE. It is clear that a new time is a new life. But!!! Everything new is well forgotten old. Maybe there is a reason to “dig into old clothes” and not necessarily in the Soviet one. True, if they do not use the Soviet experience, then they basically “nod” to the West (apparently, the costs of the system), as if the Russian school never existed.

2012-01-25 13:06:08

Yes, I remember school years, sheer horror! For 10 years, I only learned to write, read and count, all other unnecessary knowledge flew out of my head for several years after graduation!) I loved only geography and that’s it. Therefore, I completely agree with the article! But I would like to know from you Nikolay, will you give your son to school, or not ???

2013-09-05 20:21:28

in general, if you dig deeper - children. why don't i have them? because I consider it unacceptable to "take" my children to kindergarten, school or other things from the previous generation. why are they giving birth to children now? fashion? or they may be shaking for their lonely old age in poverty (children, as if “obligated” to finance their ancestors). I personally think that the basis of a full-fledged life of a modern person in society is obvious - now everything is for money. you are born a debtor to the state. you don’t have an apartment and it costs money. accordingly, instead of having your own child squander his childhood in comp games, living other people's lives (characters) and doing other nonsense - you can teach him to cut money on the Internet, of course explaining to him "the scale of the disaster and the size of the delirium on the planet." and because of the primitive state laws, all work with money can be passed through an "adult". such a child initially already receives a picture of the processes of society through business processes. and plays not in online rts characters but by their own employees or water. studying real people. such a child, even in childhood, may not play enough games at the computer, but he will certainly catch up if of course he wants to - after all, people are the best bots. playing other people's lives is more fun than virtual characters. I personally intend to raise my children this way if they will of course be)) of similar articles about the absurdity of a tower or dofig school on the net. Pavel Durov has an excellent article about the tower. the problem is that the CA does not read them. schoolchildren play games sometimes even ruining health. flush life down the toilet from the start. perhaps if you explain this chip to new “progressive” prodigies and create fundamentally new schools that will teach children not algebra and other nonsense, but real practical things in terms of .... namely. of what you can change any toys and make your life like in a computer game or better. personally, school and college did not give me anything. I have English with comp games. I do not remember anything other than the multiplication table and the Russian language. there was no tower. I already knew in college that what for doesn’t need all this and the tower did not go out of principle, although the ancestors snapped. at school I "slept" (consciousness was asleep) - I played computer games like everyone else. although in fact I do not regret it and of course I do not blame anyone. Now the whole world of my childhood in my computer, I can always visit him with rare attacks of nostalgia. look at the statistics. Bill Gates Steve Jobs, far from having to go to the Russian Federation is full of examples. some have not even finished school, they left it. and now they have both time and the best teachers, whose time can be bought for money that can explain the processes in the atomic nucleus on the fingers. need to change society. I described an example of an action and consider it effective. children (more precisely, still truly living people) acquire knowledge better than half-dead "adult" enemies. If you implement what has been described, I can assume the competition of children on the Internet. it would be more abrupt than the competition of corporations with their resources, not talking about smaller groups of "adult" people

2013-09-05 20:59:19

first you need to have money or conditions for the normal development of children and not give birth to them for the sake of fashion and not donate kudapopalo (their own children). such parents characterize themselves. if there are no conditions for the birth of the norms of children, why do they "start" them? this is a matter of quality and common sense. several million with a high level of consciousness, or, as it is now, 6 billion, as it were, people who are not aware of any of their actions and are destroying the planet at a rapid pace. there is awareness there is order and quality. the opposite is chaos and destruction. As for raising children, that is another question. just explain the importance of money, and the minimum basics of security when dealing with society. and it’s important to keep up with them and not wash the Mosque with them with their religions and other “theirs”. give them freedom and, moreover, do not force them to anything. do not push them a “spoonful of porridge for grandmother” (and here, figuratively and literally, a person is taught from childhood to listen to his body and listen to nature and then learn the alphabet of wheels from a pharmacy)

To date, a uniform school uniform, mandatory for all students, has not been introduced in the country. But individual schools, according to their internal charter, can make it compulsory for their students, if both the administration and most parents agree. In this regard, disputes about the pros and cons of regulated school clothes do not stop, so we tried to understand the arguments of both sides.

Equity Pledge

• PROS: Teachers say that many children, especially in primary and secondary schools, still love to make fun of each other about clothes. If a child is dressed ugly by the standards of classmates, his clothes are bought in a “nameless” store or in the clothing market, then he is more likely to become an outcast, or at least an object for evil jokes. The school uniform allows children not to compete and not judge each other at least “by their clothes”. So, students from poor and wealthy families get the opportunity to dress exactly the same, regardless of their social status and financial situation.

• CONS: Others believe that balancing the poor and the rich with one form alone will not work. Today's children pay a lot of attention to clothes, but they pay even more attention to various gadgets and other fashionable little things. Won't a child in uniform with a brand new iPhone and a child in uniform with a Chinese smartphone seven years ago feel the difference? Cheap and expensive pencil cases, notebooks and bags also only increase competition. And if it is not the school that sews the uniform, but each parent according to the presented pattern, then wealthy families will be able to order better clothes made from good materials, and this will also be noticeable.

Cost savings

• PROS: According to supporters, school uniforms can be of help to low-income families. After all, it gives them the opportunity to avoid buying a large amount of clothing, limiting themselves only to buying several sets of uniforms. Parents do not need to think about how to dress the child, and the child will not spin for hours at the closet with a mirror, choosing what to wear today.

• CONS: Firstly, one set of school uniforms can cost more than a pair of regular jeans and shirts. And there are at least four such sets: two for the warm and cold season, and two replaceable ones for them in case of force majeure, unscheduled washing or damage. Secondly, ordinary clothes can be combined endlessly, and if you alternate a pair of sets of uniforms with each other, then it will quickly wear out and you will have to buy it again. The worse the materials (and in public schools with poor funding, this usually happens), the faster the clothes go bad. And when you consider that children are also constantly growing ... Obviously, a good school uniform can fly a pretty penny to parents.

Improving academic performance and discipline

• PROS: 20 years ago in the USA, where many state schools are returning to school uniforms, a special scientific study was conducted to study the correlation of form and performance in schools. It showed that students in educational institutions where a school uniform is introduced show better results in school than students in schools with a free style of clothing. This is due to the fact that the school uniform has an educational function: it disciplines the child and makes it clear to him the difference between behavior at school and behavior at home or in the yard.

• CONS: But there are also those who want to argue with this advantage of school uniforms. Comparison of the performance ratings of schools where a school uniform is introduced and where it is not entered is not representative, because good grades of students depend on many different factors: the professionalism of teachers, the microclimate in school and class, the family environment and the upbringing of each student, etc. Therefore, it is impossible to say unequivocally that it is the presence of the form that affects the difference in academic performance.

Aesthetics and Cohesion

• PROS: School uniforms for girls and boys are a great way to highlight children in society: they look so neat, beautiful and aesthetically pleasing, and not like a motley mass. From an early age they accustom themselves to the corporate culture and dress code that awaits them in the future at work in large companies. In addition, children who wear the same clothes with their classmates feel more united and feel more like each other.

• CONS: Children in the same form look beautiful and neat only according to those who support this form, which means that this argument is subjective and unconvincing. Quite the contrary, most children strive to show their exclusivity among their peers, their dissimilarity to others, especially adolescents, and their school uniforms simply depersonalize and unify them. Even school students with uniforms are trying to stand out from the crowd, shortening their skirts, rolling up their sleeves, changing hairstyles and colors of socks. And we must understand that each boy and each girl has his own type of figure, on someone the school uniform will sit perfectly, and someone will completely spoil it - it unfairly turns out.

More arguments for the school uniform:

• When a child wears a beautiful, strict uniform with an emblem patch, this not only makes him a worthy student in the eyes of others, but he also exposes the school itself in a good light: the educational institution seems more solid and organized.
• Some parents dress their children simply disgustingly, tastelessly, and a children's school uniform can hide this from prying eyes.

But the arguments against are even greater:

What is the truth? Obviously, in the "golden mean". Absolutely identical uniforms of a single school uniform can hit the pocket of parents and limit the freedom of children, so it is better to compromise, as many schools do - to set a strict dress code in moderation. For example, to prohibit wearing open blouses and tops, miniskirts, “ripped” jeans, sleeveless jackets, high heels and slippers to school, but not to limit children in comfortable jeans, T-shirts and hoodies, especially in cold weather; introduce a ban on bright makeup, but do not ban cosmetics at all. Then the students will look decent, and the parents will not spend more money than usual, and the children themselves will still be able to express themselves in clothes, just in a more strict form.

Interesting facts about school uniforms in other countries of the world

• Perhaps the most famous school uniform in the world is Japanese. There are several varieties of it, but the most popular school uniform for girls called “seifuku” is a shirt with a sailor’s collar, a pleated skirt above or below the knee, long knee-high socks and low-leather leather shoes. The Japanese school uniform for boys is called "gakuran": straight-cut trousers and a dark jacket with a stand-up collar. Clothing, stylized in uniform, is worn not only by schoolchildren and schoolgirls, but also by other young Japanese, and fans of Japanese culture all over the world are also happy to order "sailors" on the Internet.

• The school uniform is an obligatory element of ancient and prestigious schools in the UK, since it emphasizes belonging to a particular educational institution with its own history and list of merits. Children and adolescents in such schools are proud to be their students, so they are always happy to wear jackets and blazers with a distinctive logo.

• An indicator of membership in an educational institution, first of all, is the form in American and Canadian private schools. In public schools, the form can be found very rarely, although its introduction is actively discussed by parents and teachers in many states, but sometimes there is a dress code - moderately strict clothes in soothing colors and without revealing elements.

• In Germany, a classic school uniform is also a rare occurrence, but some institutions, with the consent of parents and students, introduce uniform clothing for attending school, and students themselves participate in its creation.

• Younger students in South Korea don’t wear uniforms, but starting from high school, regulated clothing becomes mandatory for all students.

• But in Cuba, uniform is an indispensable element of absolutely all schools and even universities.

An interesting video with a school uniform adopted in different countries of the world awaits you further:

This issue often causes a lot of controversy among three interested groups: teachers, students and their parents. The school uniform has a fairly large number of opponents, but no less than admirers. Each of the parties puts forward many arguments and counterarguments, but so far it has not been possible to come to a consensus.

Statistics show that most teachers and parents unequivocally support the introduction of school uniforms. Perhaps the reason for this is that the older generation, in their school years, wore uniforms and did not experience any complexes in this regard. Moreover, if now they propose to introduce a single form for each educational institution, then at that time it was one for all schools. Mostly opponents of school uniforms among adults explain their opinion as "the cost of uniform is too high." Given that usually the clothes that students put on when they go to class are not cheaper, such a justification seems ridiculous at all.

Pupils themselves usually explain the reluctance to wear a uniform by its inconvenience and unattractive appearance. This "problem" is also easily solved, because now it is not difficult to order a modern fashionable school uniform that will meet all the requirements of the educational institution and the tastes of young people. School uniforms can and should be attractive and comfortable.

Another argument against school uniforms is the loss of personality and blurring of differences between students. Oddly enough, it is also actively used by supporters of the form, explaining that everyone in the school should be on an equal footing. It is quite difficult to argue with the latter, given that everyone is engaged in the same program and evaluated according to a single system. As for the “loss of individuality,” with the same success, claims can be made against a uniform educational system for all and the same educational conditions.

By the way, in European countries, the need to attend classes in uniform that is identical for all students in a separate institution not only does not bother anyone, but is also a matter of pride, as it determines membership in one of the elite schools. A similar situation in recent years has been developing in Russia, as private schools were the first to decide to introduce uniform clothes for students.

According to experts, a strict form of clothing disciplines and helps to focus on the educational process. In addition, the school uniform smooths out social differences, and students from less affluent families will not feel uncomfortable in cheaper clothes than classmates. Psychologists also believe that in strict and at the same time elegant clothes, people feel much more confident.

There is one more argument that largely outweighs the rest of the opinions: the school uniform is the best match the general standards of etiquette and the status of students.


Rospotrebnadzor believes that the introduction of a school uniform will protect Russian children from skin diseases, colds and a number of other diseases that are caused by wearing poor-quality and unsafe clothes.

The results of the analysis of the incidence of children indicate the presence of direct, statistically significant cause-and-effect relationships between the functional purpose of clothing and its quality indicators, on the one hand, and skin diseases (contact and atopic dermatitis) and colds (flu, acute respiratory diseases, organ diseases respiration) on the other hand.

The relevance of the school uniform is also due to the characteristics of the growth and development of the child's body during the training period. Children of different ages have features of the organization of movement (degree of muscle development, range of motion), which affect the magnitude of changes in the size of the body of children in dynamics. Ergonomically perfect (comfortable for the child in statics and dynamics) school uniform allows you to form the bearing of the child’s figure and is designed to provide dynamic comfort.

Thus, based on the foregoing, we can conclude that:

- The strict style of clothing creates the business atmosphere necessary for classes at the school.
- The form disciplines a person.
- A student in a school uniform thinks about studying, not about clothes.
- There is no problem "What to go to school."
- The school uniform helps the child feel like a student and a member of a certain team, makes it possible to feel his involvement in this particular school.
  - If the child likes the clothes, he will feel pride in his appearance.
- The school uniform saves parents money.